EPTPinnacle voids Dark vs. San bets due to match manipulation…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Matchfixing is a very serious offence and accusations of matchfixing should not be made lightly. Please avoid making accusations against specific individuals unless you have substantial proof, or until further information is released. (0620 KST) | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3088 Posts
Also, if match-fixing is involved, good game analysis by good players would be in order. In BW, a lot of the match-fixed games were rather obvious in retrospect. I have my doubts about how easy it is for pros who train as much as they do to throw a game without tells. Sure, in theory it's possible to do so, but that implies a level of skill and deliberateness that I doubt most progamers are capable of. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:36 Jarree wrote: That's actually extremely ethical behavior. But I guess fans and bettors differ in this matter. He said in the post I quoted "If literally nothing is found to explain the situation, it's also fair to warn people not to bet on San". But he didn't wait to see if something was found. Thus by his own reasoning what he did is not fair, and I doubt it's ethical if it's unfair. | ||
|
sixfour
England11060 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:31 OtherWorld wrote: Yeah right. But only after stating multiple times on Twitter that San was throwing the game for money, and telling people not to bet on him anymore before something may be found to explain the situation. What an ethical behavior. I wouldn't bet on him anymore, and wouldn't recommend anyone else to either until this clears up. Simple case of caveat emptor. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:43 Captain Peabody wrote: Also, if match-fixing is involved, good game analysis by good players would be in order. I think it would lead only to a huge shitstorm. I remember a case when someone was accused of map-hacking and at least Catz and someone else "analyzed" the demo, it was horrible speculation that lead to nothing. There's mistakes in almost every game you can point out. There's a reason for the catchphrase "follow the money". | ||
|
Swoopae
Australia339 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:31 OtherWorld wrote: Yeah right. But only after stating multiple times on Twitter that San was throwing the game for money, and telling people not to bet on him anymore before something may be found to explain the situation. What an ethical behavior. At the time I was pretty pissed off. I've since rescinded that statement and replaced it with 'something happened that was not above board in the San vs Dark game' which in my opinion is over 95% likely to be true. That said by taking the statement back it does not mean it conclusively didn't happen either, it means we need to wait for the investigation to be concluded. Something did happen. We just don't know what yet. It's not my place to find out or speculate further but the people saying everything was above board here are objectively likely to be wrong. I would still advise not to bet on or against San at this point in time regardless of the state of the investigation, or even if an investigation never happens. Unknown factors are a bad thing in betting and this is one of those. | ||
|
Swoopae
Australia339 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:34 Nezgar wrote: Wow, wait a second. Please take a look at the first page of this thread. Do you see the tweet that was embedded there? That was your tweet, directly accusing him of throwing the game for money. So please stop further speculations or accusations. Every time you write something you speculate that he is guilty which makes me question whether you have an argenda regarding this. Your behavior is pretty much the definition of being a scumbag. You mean the tweet I clearly stated I made too quickly and have rescinded? I have since stated that it is too soon to reach any conclusions but that something clearly happened which was not above board in the match in question. We don't know what that was. I don't have an agenda. My agenda was to see that this match is investigated for potential match fixing. Because the world's leading sports book thinks match fixing occurred. I think an investigation is warranted as something clearly happened. Anybody who understands sports betting and line movement knows it is pretty much statistically impossible for no market manipulation to have occurred; and if market manipulation did occur then it is for a reason. An investigation should shed light on that. I have no personal or financial stake in any outcome and no affiliation with any person or organisation involved. The only thing that has happened so far is an assortment of people have called me a scumbag on forums and twitter, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion about whatever. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:13 Swoopae wrote: I've stated San is innocent until proven guilty. If he is innocent, and yes that is an if, then it is overwhelmingly likely that someone close to him did everything in their power to ensure he loses which is still a form of match fixing. The market was manipulated and someone KNEW San wins less than 1 in 5 times in a best of 1 against a similarly skilled player (who he has a lifetime and recent winning record against although thats not too relevant) Something happened here, and it needs to be investigated, and that sucks for San if he's innocent, but if he's innocent he'll be cleared (and there's a good chance he needs to cut a friend or coach out of his life for risking his livelihood to make money). If he's guilty they may find proof and they may not and if they don't it's fair to give him the presumption of innocence. If literally nothing is found to explain the situaiton, it's also fair to warn people not to bet on San's matches for real money though because Pinnacle don't just make this accusation that the game was not fairly contested and refund what I assume is 5-6 figures of bets in the process unless it is overwhelmingly mathematically unlikely that the game was fair. Again you say he's innocent until proven guilty but match fixing is "overwhelmingly likely". You're speculating. What if the better was not a rational better? What if someone knew about San's condition and decided to do something crazy? You have no idea either way so you should not keep insinuating that San is very likely guilty, which we all know is your belief. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11784 Posts
| ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
Hope it will get investigated and if someone is responsible acted accordingly | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:47 Swoopae wrote: At the time I was pretty pissed off. I've since rescinded that statement and replaced it with 'something happened that was not above board in the San vs Dark game' which in my opinion is over 95% likely to be true. That said by taking the statement back it does not mean it conclusively didn't happen either, it means we need to wait for the investigation to be concluded. Something did happen. We just don't know what yet. It's not my place to find out or speculate further but the people saying everything was above board here are objectively likely to be wrong. I would still advise not to bet on or against San at this point in time regardless of the state of the investigation, or even if an investigation never happens. Unknown factors are a bad thing in betting and this is one of those. Pretty pissed off? I thought that On January 22 2015 00:52 Swoopae wrote: Just to clarify one more point; I couldn't care less about the 600 dollars I had refunded on San ? Nah seriously don't get me wrong, I get that betting sites are professional enough to recognize when something is really fishy, and that this has not many chances of being a false positive. But despite what your opinion is, that does not mean that San threw the game on purpose for money ; for all we know it could be anything ranging from a group of stupid people/relatives using insider information about San being bad, to replay leaking allowing Dark to anticipate perfectly San's moves, to San being payed to throw the game, or even to hackers wanting to damage San's reputation and using money they gained by phishing or the likes. Moreover, as you stated earlier, it is innocent until proved guilty, which means that shitting on San for now is pointless and hurtful for everyone's reputation. | ||
|
Z.Aether
Spain37 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9336 Posts
What if someone knew about San's condition and decided to do something crazy? You have no idea either way so you should not keep insinuating that San is very likely guilty, which we all know is your belief. The problem is that you assume that because there are different possibilites, each possbility is equally likely, however, that's not true. On one hand you have the following possiblity: A: An inside better knows that San hasn't practiced well the prior week, but is also irrational in the sense that he puts way too much emphasize on it. It seems weird that a bettor with access too huge sums that - apparently is in betting to win money - is also this irrational. B: San was paid to lose the game. The latter is just more likely. There are just fewer conditions that needs to go up for this to be true. Some people in here think they may know San becasue they watched him play and read a few interviews, but come one, you don't really know this guy. Instead, it seems plausible that - out of all the PL players with the potential for a low future income, that there is a single player who tries to go for the easy money. Thus, the concept that one has no idea doesn't make sense as you can make speculations based on probabilities + you can warn other people based on that as well. In fact, if I expected that some this guy who was a murder (but wasn't 100% sure) I also would recommend my friends to not visit his house. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On January 22 2015 01:45 OtherWorld wrote: He said in the post I quoted "If literally nothing is found to explain the situation, it's also fair to warn people not to bet on San". But he didn't wait to see if something was found. Thus by his own reasoning what he did is not fair, and I doubt it's ethical if it's unfair. You could also look at it this way: it doesn't matter the results of the investigation so why not get the message out now? The sad likelihood is nothing is going to be found one way or the other. Someone made fishy bets and that's probably all we'll know. And since we don't know, it'll get swept up and people will go back to their daily business and this'll happen again. (Are we even a week out from WCS EU *banning* two players for trying to fix a game?) On January 22 2015 01:56 Doodsmack wrote: Again you say he's innocent until proven guilty but match fixing is "overwhelmingly likely". You're speculating. What if the better was not a rational better? What if someone knew about San's condition and decided to do something crazy? You have no idea either way so you should not keep insinuating that San is very likely guilty, which we all know is your belief. Despite people wanting to point to insider betting without San doing anything wrong, ask yourself this: If San was fielded in a shape where he was 90% likely to lose, what sense does it make for that to happen? Did the team sabotage their own chances of winning? Did San withold his condition? I mean, we're starting to assume that he was in such bad shape that Dark couldn't lose, but how can that even happen? This isn't an individual league, they could have swapped San out if it was such a foregone conclusion without match fixing. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 22 2015 02:08 Hider wrote: The problem is that you assume that because there are different possibilites, each possbility is equally likely, however, that's not true. On one hand you have the following possiblity: A: An inside better knows that San hasn't practiced well the prior week, but is also irrational in the sense that he puts way too much emphasize on it. It seems weird that a bettor with access too huge sums that - apparently is in betting to win money - is also this irrational. B: San was paid to lose the game. The latter is just more likely. There are just fewer conditions that needs to go up for this to be true. Some people in here think they may know San becasue they watched him play and read a few interviews, but come one, you don't really know this guy. Instead, it seems plausible that - out of all the PL players with the potential for a low future income, that there is a single player who tries to go for the easy money. Thus, the concept that one has no idea doesn't make sense as you can make speculations based on probabilities + you can warn other people based on that as well. In fact, if I expected that some this guy who was a murder (but wasn't 100% sure) I also would recommend my friends to not visit his house. You can make speculations based on probabilities, which still doesn't mean that the most likely speculation is true and that you should draw conclusions from it. On January 22 2015 02:09 Wuster wrote: You could also look at it this way: it doesn't matter the results of the investigation so why not get the message out now? The sad likelihood is nothing is going to be found one way or the other. Someone made fishy bets and that's probably all we'll know. And since we don't know, it'll get swept up and people will go back to their daily business and this'll happen again. (Are we even a week out from WCS EU *banning* two players for trying to fix a game?) Why nothing would be found? I trust KeSPA for these kind of things. If they decide an investigation must take place then things will be found, explaining the fishy bets. | ||
|
sixfour
England11060 Posts
On January 22 2015 02:04 Z.Aether wrote: Just looking at recent ressults anyone with a clear mind would be on Dark against San. San is one of those overrated protoss that relys on timings the 80% of his playbook. Learn his timings, ruin them --> EASY WIN. Which is what happened in ProLeague, dont know whats weird about that xD we'll just pretend san 2-0ing dark earlier in this month didn't happen then | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On January 22 2015 02:11 OtherWorld wrote: You can make speculations based on probabilities, which still doesn't mean that the most likely speculation is true and that you should draw conclusions from it. Why nothing would be found? I trust KeSPA for these kind of things. If they decide an investigation must take place then things will be found, explaining the fishy bets. So Davydenko has 10's of millions in unexplained bets placed against him and nothing conclusive is found. But KeSPA's going to get to the bottom of things? I don't know if I'm that confident. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On January 22 2015 02:20 Wuster wrote: So Davydenko has 10's of millions in unexplained bets placed against him and nothing conclusive is found. But KeSPA's going to get to the bottom of things? I don't know if I'm that confident. This is a videogame-related forum, not a betting-related forum, which is pretty evident in this thread. | ||
|
dangthatsright
1158 Posts
On January 22 2015 02:14 sixfour wrote: we'll just pretend san 2-0ing dark earlier in this month didn't happen then statistics and probability are strange things two perfectly even players give you (with a fair share of assumptions) a 50% chance of one of them "crushing" the other 2-0 in a bo3 (25% for a specific one, e.g. san) certainly adds to the weirdness of the betting line shift, which is the more relevant thing here* but as an aside, it would be very hard to use that to argue that dark wasn't favored at all * strictly in the context of pinnacle voiding bets | ||
| ||
